The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

Hitman3000

Zubeneschamali wrote:

I think the idea is that if the students are in the Park at all today, they are not at home voting in Ballydehob.

Shows they have a contempt for young people. Large number of my son's college friends travelled home last night. I collected 3 of his friends myself.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Polling back as far as January said more people agreed with the 12 week proposal than disagreed.

That merely reflects the need to chose between the current option.

It doesn't reflect what would be the case in a difficult case only option

antiskeptic

Turns out the Phoenix Park thing is a fake news. I heard it from a friend .. who heard it from a friend.

Apols to boards ( and No and Yes). Should have checked

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose a proposition was posed for hard cases and that attracted an 80/20 result yes. And the current attracts 60/40 yes.

Would you find the former a better result?

No, because the "hard cases" amendment would be another botch like the 8th, trying to capture chapters of legal nuance in a paragraph. Nobody would know what it even meant until people died and cases got to the Supreme Court.

This is precisely the situation we are trying to claw our way out of after 35 years.

Zubeneschamali

cournioni wrote: »

Clearly because there were other factors at play. Abortion without restriction is simply the dealbreaker that could not be overlooked in the end.

But it was the headline proposal from the Citizens Assembly a year ago! The basis for the Referendum.

Nobody sprang it on you at the last minute - if that is a deal breaker, there was no deal day 1.

cournioni

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But it was the headline proposal from the Citizens Assembly a year ago! The basis for the Referendum.

Nobody sprang it on you at the last minute - if that is a deal breaker, there was no deal day 1.

I’d prefer it if you didn’t pretend to speak for me. If you don’t mind. Thanks.

Hitman3000

antiskeptic wrote:

Turns out the Phoenix Park thing is a fake news. I heard it from a friend .. who heard it from a friend.

I'm shocked that someone made up stuff.

Loafing Oaf

cournioni wrote: »

Made my decision to vote No after a lot of thought. Not ideal but I feel that there have to be other solutions to protecting the mothers health without threatening the life of other unborn by Repeal of the 8th.

The key factor in my decision is that I absolutely disagree with Abortion on Demand. Not acceptable to deliberately kill inside or outside of the womb.

If that is what you believe I find it hard to see how you were in any doubt about how to vote.

Nettle Soup

cournioni wrote: »

I’d prefer it if you didn’t pretend to speak for me. If you don’t mind. Thanks.

:rolleyes:;)

cournioni

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If that is what you believe I find it hard to see how you were in any doubt about how to vote.

Just assessing all of the options available. Not all of us have the time to look into these things intensely from day one.

blanch152

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Only in the sense that there is a 'possibility' Dublin won't win the Leinster Football Championship this year. For the legislation to go down would necessitate one of two extremely unlikely developments: Sin Fein not supporting it or the vast majority of (supposedly) undecided Fine Gael TDs voting against...

Sinn Fein do not support abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. They need an Ard Fheis to change that. If there is a vote in the Dail next week on the Government proposal, Sinn Fein would have to vote against.

Have a look at the numbers, and some of these are only guesses based on stated views. In favour of the governments' proposal

For: 42

Solidarity: 6
Labour Party: 7
Green Party: 2
Social Democrats: 2
Independents for Change: 4
Fianna Fail: 14
Other Independents: 7

Against: 65

Sinn Fein: 23
Fianna Fail: 30
Other Independents: 12

That leaves the 50 FG TDs. If 13 of them break ranks and vote against the proposal, it could be defeated.

One of two things need to happen for the legislation to pass - a SF Ard Fheis to change their position or at least 37 FG TDs hold their nerve.

Nettle Soup

cournioni wrote: »

Just assessing all of the options available. Not all of us have the time to look into these things intensely from day one.

I don't think it's that complex given the wealth of information.

The question today is whether you want to repeal the 8th amendment (article 40.3.3) and replace it with these 13 words: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies.”

The draft bill that the government have proposed should Yes win is also freely available and has been discussed at length.

Here you go;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/what-would-replace-the-eighth-amendment-the-text-the-law-the-politics-1.3505902

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, because the "hard cases" amendment would be another botch like the 8th, trying to capture chapters of legal nuance in a paragraph. Nobody would know what it even meant until people died and cases got to the Supreme Court.

This is precisely the situation we are trying to claw our way out of after 35 years.

So, in turning down an 80/20 yes in favour of a 60/40 yes you are trusting women and men?

cournioni

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I don't think it's that complex given the wealth of information.

The question today is whether you want to repeal the 8th amendment (article 40.3.3) and replace it with these 13 words: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies.”

The draft bill that the government have proposed should Yes win is also freely available and has been discussed at length.

Here you go;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/what-would-replace-the-eighth-amendment-the-text-the-law-the-politics-1.3505902

Very good.

Like I said, when I had time, I took my time, assessed all of the information and options and made my decision. It doesn’t matter when I or anybody else did it. You’re making an utterly pointless argument out of nothing.

Main point is that the prospect of Abortion on Demand was the dealbreaker for me.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein do not support abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. They need an Ard Fheis to change that. If there is a vote in the Dail next week on the Government proposal, Sinn Fein would have to vote against.

Have a look at the numbers, and some of these are only guesses based on stated views. In favour of the governments' proposal

For: 42

Solidarity: 6
Labour Party: 7
Green Party: 2
Social Democrats: 2
Independents for Change: 4
Fianna Fail: 14
Other Independents: 7

Against: 65

Sinn Fein: 23
Fianna Fail: 30
Other Independents: 12

That leaves the 50 FG TDs. If 13 of them break ranks and vote against the proposal, it could be defeated.

One of two things need to happen for the legislation to pass - a SF Ard Fheis to change their position or at least 37 FG TDs hold their nerve.

SF have brought their Ard Fheis forward to next month to settle policy on the 12-week legislation. Given the centralisation of power in the party and the prominent role Mary Lou has taken in the yes campaign, how likely is any motion supporting that legislation to be defeated? Can you imagine the shower of manure that would rain down on SF heads from all shades of the left if they were responsible for the defeat of the legislation in the Dail, given that Varadkar, Martin, Coveney etc. are supporting it?

As far as the FG waverers go, well I'll refer you what happened when feet were held to the fire over POLDPA. Even some of the most loudly pro-life deputies like John O'Mahony and James Bannon trooped into the Ta lobby when threatened with expulsion. Okay the threat this time will instead be an ongoing legal and political crisis over the issue, which is not as immediate. But how likely is any TD who hasn't declared a position on the legislation up to now to stand up and defy the party leadership if the referendum is passed?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nettle Soup

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obviously he did all his research but the No soundbyte (abortion on demand for everyone) worked a treat

cournioni

....... wrote: »

I find this a curious viewpoint.

We already have abortion on demand, subject to the UKs abortion regime, which is more liberal than anything we have proposed.

Hard to understand why it would be a dealbreaker under the circumstances unless the deal being broken is simply NIMBYism.

Which I disagree with also, but we are not voting on 13 and 14, therefore it is pointless bringing the UK into what I decide to vote for in Ireland.

ArthurDayne

cournioni wrote: »

Very good.

Like I said, when I had time, I took my time, assessed all of the information and options and made my decision. It doesn’t matter when I or anybody else did it. You’re making an utterly pointless argument out of nothing.

Main point is that the prospect of Abortion on Demand was the dealbreaker for me.

Abortion on demand is already happening via travelling abroad -- such travel being protected by the Constitutional article that people are voting on today.

All you are doing by voting No is voting to retain a constitutional article which in one line says it acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, but in the very next line effectively constitutionally protects citizens who seek information on services to 'kill their baby' and travel abroad to perform said 'killing'.

By voting No -- you are not stopping abortion on demand. You are only preventing this country from making legislation which (a) reflects the current reality whether you accept it or not and (b) make laws which will provide a more humane framework for rape victims, women carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality, and other horrific circumstances.

Irish people are having abortions every single day -- and the Constitution is banning them in one line but letting the Brits do it for us in another. That is the reality. By voting no, you are voting to impose your own beliefs on the rest of us -- with your head firmly in the sand as to what is happening in this country.

blanch152

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

SF have brought their Ard Fheis forward to next month to settle policy on the 12-week legislation. Given the centralisation of power in the party and the prominent role Mary Lou has taken in the yes campaign, how likely is any motion supporting that legislation to be defeated? Can you imagine the shower of manure that would rain down on SF heads from all shades of the left if they were responsible for the defeat of the legislation in the Dail, given that Varadkar, Martin, Coveney etc. are supporting it?

As far as the FG waverers go, well I'll refer you what happened when feet were held to the fire over POLDPA. Even some of the most loudly pro-life deputies like John O'Mahony and James Bannon trooped into the Ta lobby when threatened with expulsion. Okay the threat this time will instead be an ongoing legal and political crisis over the issue, which is not as immediate. But how likely is any TD who hasn't declared a position on the legislation up to now to stand up and defy the party leadership if the referendum is passed?

There will be legislation passed, there is no doubt, but will it be passed unamended? It is amendments that pose the threat.

Ash.J.Williams

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I don't have a uterus so I'm grand, unless it's possible that I get pregnant.

and then what?

cournioni

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Abortion on demand is already happening via travelling abroad -- such travel being protected by the Constitutional article that people are voting on today.

All you are doing by voting No is voting to retain a constitutional article which in one line says it acknowledges the right to life of the unborn, but in the very next line effectively constitutionally protects citizens who seek information on services to 'kill their baby' and travel abroad to perform said 'killing'.

By voting No -- you are not stopping abortion on demand. You are only preventing this country from making legislation which (a) reflects the current reality whether you accept it or not and (b) make laws which will provide a more humane framework for rape victims, women carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality, and other horrific circumstances.

Irish people are having abortions every single day -- and the Constitution is banning them in one line but letting the Brits do it for us in another. That is the reality. By voting no, you are voting to impose your own beliefs on the rest of us -- with your head firmly in the sand as to what is happening in this country.

Again, we are not discussing those amendments, which I have already stated that I disagree with for Abortion on Demand.

On the contrary, I believe your head is firmly in the sand if you believe one thing for a baby being deliberately killed at the same stage of development inside the womb and another for outside of the womb.

.......

This post has been deleted.

cournioni

....... wrote: »

Oh dear.

Your research seems to be lacking.

What we are voting on today includes the 13th and 14th Amendments.



source

And it is not pointless to bring in the UK when the 13th and 14th are also included in the article and when the reality is that women are procuring abortions under the UK regime daily.

If you dont accept that this is the reality then it is simply you with your head in the sand.

Oh dear. You should read my previous posts then. I have stated that I am unhappy with the options in front of me.

listermint

cournioni wrote: »

Again, we are not discussing those amendments, which I have already stated that I disagree with for Abortion on Demand.

On the contrary, I believe your head is firmly in the sand if you believe one thing for a baby being deliberately killed at the same stage of development inside the womb and another for outside of the womb.

Then don't demand an abortion.


It could not be simpler for you if you tried.

cournioni

listermint wrote: »

Then don't demand an abortion.


It could not be simpler for you if you tried.

Good of you to take time out to make a joke on this issue.

GreeBo

It really was that simple for me.

I want the ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy, up to the point that that pregnancy has a viable chance at survival on its own.

If I leave it too late (for some unknown reason?) then my option is to give the child up for adoption or keep the child once born.

If I make the decision (for *whatever* reason) that I dont want to have a child, again, before there is a viable chance of independent survival, then the decision should rest with the parents and no one else.

listermint

cournioni wrote: »

Good of you to take time out to make a joke on this issue.

It actually wasnt a joke friend.

Not at all.

Quite simply don't have one if you don't agree with it.


Good luck

.......

This post has been deleted.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

There will be legislation passed, there is no doubt, but will it be passed unamended? It is amendments that pose the threat.

Amendments that would effectively negate the '12-weeks unrestricted' aspect of the legislation? That would be in practice be the same as voting down the legislation and IMO just as unlikely to happen.

cournioni

listermint wrote: »

It actually wasnt a joke friend.

Not at all.

Quite simply don't have one if you don't agree with it.

Good luck

You’re missing the point entirely then so.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, in turning down an 80/20 yes in favour of a 60/40 yes you are trusting women and men?

No, space aliens.

jimmycrackcorm

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

ArthurDayne wrote:

By voting No -- you are not stopping abortion on demand. You are only preventing this country from making legislation which (a) reflects the current reality whether you accept it or not and (b) make laws which will provide a more humane framework for rape victims, women carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality, and other horrific circumstances.

Given that we have already have UK need about in demand then a no vote is simply an objection to that.

A no vote is a valid response for that reason even in circumstances where one might believe abortion is justified.

AnneFrank

cournioni wrote: »

You’re missing the point entirely then so.

You will just be attacked left and right for holding this view, one which i totally agree with.
These threads are just a massive echo chamber for the young and naive, much like the journal.
The result will speak for itself

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

You will just be attacked left and right for holding this view, one which i totally agree with.
These threads are just a massive echo chamber for the young and naive, much like the journal.
The result will speak for itself

You being older does not make your opinion more superior, or valid, than anyone else's.
What speaks for itself is your inability to not make personal comments and sly digs when discussing this issue.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein do not support abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. They need an Ard Fheis to change that. If there is a vote in the Dail next week on the Government proposal, Sinn Fein would have to vote against.

There isn't going to be a vote next week, the legislation is not ready. The minister has said he will try to have a vote this year.

SF will have an Ard Fheis before the vote and the rank-and-file will be told to give Mary Lou the backing she needs.

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

You being older does not make your opinion more superior, or valid, than anyone else's.
What speaks for itself is your inability to not make personal comments and sly digs when discussing this issue.

Think your conflating democracy (in which everyones vote is equal) with wisdom. Per definition, an older person will, on average, be wiser than a younger one.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Pete29

So what are the chances the proposed legislation survives in its current form given a yes vote?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Meanwhile: Strong turnout reported in first hours of voting

If Dublin votes at General Election levels, it'll be a big Yes win.

Zubeneschamali

AnneFrank wrote: »

These threads are just a massive echo chamber for the young and naive

So which way did YOU vote in 1983? I was a No.

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Give me the opinion of an experienced doctor over a medical student

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Give me the opinion of an experienced doctor over a medical student

Better yet, how about we listen to the broad consensus of the medical profession as a whole?

Loafing Oaf

Pete29 wrote: »

So what are the chances the proposed legislation survives in its current form given a yes vote?

As I've been saying to blanch 152, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. As Simon Harris was saying the other day, no-one has put forward any alternative.

Pete29

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As I've been saying to blanch 152, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. As Simon Harris was saying the other day, no-one has put forward any alternative.

Doesn't it have to go through several committees and debates in both houses, though?

Loafing Oaf

Pete29 wrote: »

Doesn't it have to go through several committees and debates in both houses, though?

I'm not fully au fait with the process but I can't see any political incentive for seriously watering down the legislation.

Zubeneschamali

Pete29 wrote: »

Doesn't it have to go through several committees and debates in both houses?

Yes, of course, like any other legislation.

But no-one on the No benches has suggested any improvements yet, they bet everything on a No vote. When yes wins with the current proposal as the only framework for the legislation even suggested, the Government will be in a strong position to say that is the legislation the public voted for, there is a mandate for it.

FG TDs will back it or go the way of Lucinda. SF members will back it at an Ard Fheis if they know what's good for them. FF will split, but there will be enough to see it passed.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

Better yet, how about we listen to the broad consensus of the medical profession as a whole?

I'm not sure what special contribution an cardiologist has to make.